Casey Brown wrote:
You still aren't understanding me... I'm *love* the idea of an
extension to do this, I would rather we install it/one with the best
features first (especially if it's Wikimedia-wide).
"Perfect is the greatest enemy of the good enough." I still haven't
looked at the specific extension being proposed, but, assuming it
doesn't somehow irreversibly drive us down a dead end, we can always
start with what we have and improve it later.
Please check *your* fact first. :-) I am *for* the
extension, I just
wish it were tweaked to be more efficient. I'm surprised no one is
yelling "enwiki-centric" because the levels were in-fact based off of
enwiki...
Well, installing a global extension obviously forces global
standardization of the levels. There's two relatively obvious ways to
go about that: either pick the largest common subset (which would
essentially be the 0/1/2/3/native system from Commons) or the smallest
common superset (which would more or less be the 0/1/2/3/4/native/5/...
system from enwiki) of the various systems currently in use.
The choice comes essentially down to which one you'd rather deal with: a
bunch of vaguely defined and overlapping crufty "vanity" levels
cluttering up the system, or bazillion enwiki users screaming bloody
murder because you're taking away their "expert level" babel box.
Of course, it occurs to me that it might be possible to have it both
ways: set up the global system with only the few globally used levels,
and let individual projects maintain any additional levels they want
using either local additions to the extension or simply the existing
template-based mechanism.
(However, as issue worth considering is that, if we allow local
additions to the babel extension, some people *will* want to migrate
*all* their userboxes to it.)
--
Ilmari Karonen